Reading the swarm of comments over on Oleg's blog, it seems a lot of military folks, those with real experience, favor keeping people disarmed in barracks and around the base;
Joe, naturally, explained why that's totally ridiculous. One of the commenters suggested perhaps it's the higher level military brass who said this.
Here's my comment, which for some reason I was not able to leave over there.
Of course they do, Joe, because they're not biased gun enthusiasts who refuse to open their eyes to obvious realities. I don't think it was the "military leadership" who were saying this either. These are normal reasonable guys who don't have an agenda like the pro-gun folks do.
What do you think? Don't soldiers and marines on base engage in a bit or rough-housing, don't they play pranks on each other, doesn't it often go too far? Then of course you've got the beer-driven brawls. Aren't young military guys known for this? How could the suggestion of gun free bases stateside be met with anything but acceptance?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
I'm glad Joe didn't allow your hateful and ignorant comment.
ReplyDeleteMy heart goes out to those stuck by this horrible event.
We can see where your heart goes.
That post was written by Lyle.
ReplyDeleteUntil you can answer Just One Question and tell us how you determine truth from falsity your opinions are worthless and not worthy of response.
That you got the author of the post wrong is evidence that you are careless with the truth on small matters and hence cannot be trusted with the truth on large matters (pharaphrasing Albert Einstein.
Joe Huffman, I cannot answer either of your test questions and I mistakenly thought you were the author of that post. Does that really make my opinion worthless and prove that I'm not able to be trusted with large matters?
ReplyDeleteWhom do you think you're talking to, Joe? Do you think I'm some internationally acclaimed academic whose research you need to debunk? Or are you putting me in the category of some legislator who has true power over the laws of the land.
Do you realize how pompousand silly you sound to talk about "worthless opinions" and "being careless with the truth," not to mention the "truth from falsity" challenge, about which philosophical tomes and PhD theses have been written. Come down off your high horse, Joe. We're just talking here.
I'm a guy with a blog, that's all. The main purpose of my blog is entertainment.
Didn't I write here somewhere, Mike?
ReplyDeleteMike, if you can't answer the question, nor determine fact from fiction, your opinions regarding other people's safety are VERY dangerous.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that you make such a dismissive response to the fact that neither you, nor any of the people you look up to in the gun control world can or will answer Joe's question makes some VERY strong statements about what your goals are in this.
We can't trust them with guns on bases, yet we trust them with guns and artillery off base? That doesn't make sense.
ReplyDeleteI can understand not allowing civilians to bring guns on bases as we aren't highly trained "Only Ones", but soldiers? The very people we spend billions of dollars training, then send over seas, heavily armed to spread "democracy"?
If we can't trust them to be armed to defend themselves, we can't trust them to be armed to defend the rest of us.
well, I have served in the military, I have been with thousands of well armed, well trained professional soldiers in the United States and in other countries around the world - and I have never worried about intentional shootings, only with weapons that aren't on safe.
ReplyDeleteI think the higher level commanders should trust their lower rankers more, but then I were one once, and trust is a two way street - maybe we shouldn't trust Generals that want a disarmed soldier because he might get drunk and shoot someone.
I was in the Air Force for 4 years in the mid 80's. I'd probably agree that guns shouldn't be stored in enlisted barracks.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, there should have been a lot more arms in my armed service. I shot 50 rounds of .22 rimfire in basic...and never touched a loaded gun again on duty.
There should be quite a few people other than security carrying guns as part of their duties, and except for parades and drill, military guns should be loaded. The Fort Hood soldiers should not have had to wait for a civilian hero with a gun to come save them, some of them should have had the means to take care of it immediately.
It's not "young military guys" who are known for drunken brawls, it's just young guys.
ReplyDeleteSevesteen, Thanks again for always providing a calm thoughtful comment, often in the midst of antagonism, including my own.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the idea that barracks life would not be improved with the presence of weapons, at least not what I remember of my own experiences.
Yet it seems a bit pathetic that the military police or guards who should be armed could not interrupt that tragedy at Ft. Hood.
I guess that's what I'd like to see. As much as I distrust the police and recognize how often they abuse their power, on military bases and in the civilian world, the police should be more present and better armed, and of course better screened and trained.
In the same way I don't see guns and ammo improving the lot of your average soldier or marine, I don't see them helping regular citizens either.
I guess that's what I'd like to see. As much as I distrust the police and recognize how often they abuse their power, on military bases and in the civilian world, the police should be more present and better armed, and of course better screened and trained.
ReplyDeleteTwice as many police would not be enough to stop more than a small fraction of these, but you'd have bored policemen looking for crime--when they run out of crime, they will start handing out jaywalking tickets.
A much better idea would be to have a pool of volunteers without law enforcement powers, but with sufficient screening and training to equal law enforcement's performance in the limited situations these volunteers would have to face.
As much as I distrust the police and recognize how often they abuse their power, on military bases and in the civilian world, the police should be more present and better armed, and of course better screened and trained.
ReplyDeleteUmm what world do you live in MikeB?
Kimberly Mulney had the murderer down within ~3 minutes. A 3 minute police response time coupled with heroism and no hesitation in engaging the murderer is pretty much best case scenario.
You can't really expect the police to do a better job than that.
Oh, and you're a class act MikeB, calling those who had to endure this horrific act "pathetic."
Mike W., Where did I do this?
ReplyDeleteOh, and you're a class act MikeB, calling those who had to endure this horrific act "pathetic."
Yet it seems a bit pathetic that the military police or guards who should be armed could not interrupt that tragedy at Ft. Hood.
ReplyDeleteYour words MikeB.
You'll note that Kim Mulney responded, engaged, and neutralized the threat within 3 minutes. (using a firearm of course)
Yet the policies you and your ilk support are those which kept the victims disarmed.
The policies that kept victims disarmed are pathetic. The response to the threat once it presented itself was anything but.
Mike W. said, "Oh, and you're a class act MikeB, calling those who had to endure this horrific act "pathetic.""
ReplyDeleteI questioned that because I certainly don't remember calling anyone "pathetic." I checked the post and comments and sure enough nothing close to that appears.
Mike W.'s answer is quoting me from some other thread where indeed I did use the word "pathetic," but not at all calling anyone pathetic. What I said, according to Mike:
"Yet it seems a bit pathetic that the military police or guards who should be armed could not interrupt that tragedy at Ft. Hood."
Now, I hate these tit for tat pain-in-the-ass arguments, but I've gone through this one to say one thing. Mike W., if you're so obsessed with me that you're tracking my remarks on different sites looking for discrepancies and then misrepresenting them to make me look bad, I'm telling you now, take that shit elsewhere.
You must think since I'm the enemy, and you're engaged in a war, you can do anything. I said the situation is "pathetic," you said I called the people involved "pathetic." That's too much of a stretch, Mike. And coming from someone who continually calls other people "liars" and "hypocrites" and keeps calling people out for not backing up their statements, it's especially unacceptable.
MikeB - Seriously?! You're kidding right?
ReplyDeleteYou said it IN THIS VERY THREAD
November 8, 2009 @ 7:44AM
if you're so obsessed with me that you're tracking my remarks on different sites looking for discrepancies and then misrepresenting them to make me look bad, I'm telling you now, take that shit elsewhere.
Whoa what's with the crazy today MikeB? I'm obsessed and tracking your remarks on different sites?
The remark in question was made by you, MikeB, on your own blog.
If you're going to badmouth me and try to personally attack me it helps to have a clue what you're talking about. As it stands you're just making yourself look bad.
Sorry Mike W., you're right. I did say that on this very thread. I swear I looked three times and kept missing it; you know how much I hate letting you catch me at anything.
ReplyDeleteBack to my questions though, do you admit having mischaracterized my use of the word "pathetic?" Yes or no.
Now be careful, you've got a lot riding on how you answer this. You can admit it's "yes," and you stay in my good graces. If you're one of these stubborn people who cannot bring themselves to apologize, fine, I'll take a "yes" answer and that's the end of it.
But, if you say "no," you will be relegated to the category of Weer'd and Bob S.
They are no longer in my good graces and what that means is any comment of theirs which contains anything derogatory or nasty gets deleted. Only they and I know how often that happens. You on the other hand can continue to enjoy a bit of flexibility. You rarely make a comment around here that doesn't contain a zinger at the end or several throughout. So you decide.
What's it gonna be Mike?
"Yet it seems a bit pathetic that the military police or guards who should be armed could not interrupt that tragedy at Ft. Hood."
ReplyDeleteYou are discussing the situation by saying that it's pathetic that they were unable to interrupt the tragedy and also passing judgment on those people who "could not interrupt."
You're saying it's pathetic that those people who endured this tragedy didn't stop it. That's classless. What were they supposed to do?
What about their actions was "pathetic?" The only thing pathetic about the situation was that the victims were unarmed. The only pathetic actions were those of the murderer. Why are you badmouthing the MP's and guards for not immediately stopping a shooter who was among them and already on base?
An armed woman stopped it within 3 minutes. What more do you want?
BTW - Nowhere did you say the situation was pathetic.
You said,
Yet it seems a bit pathetic that the military police or guards who should be armed could not interrupt that tragedy at Ft. Hood."
The descriptive term used was "pathetic" and the subject(s) of the sentence are the MP's / guards.
Wrong answer, Mike.
ReplyDeleteAnd the subject was "it," referring to the situation.
"And the subject was "it," referring to the situation."
ReplyDeleteCorrect.
In this instance, I have to agree with mikeb.
The quote was mischaracterized by mike w.
Words matter.
Thanks, k.
ReplyDelete